Topic: Bitcoin Unlimited - page 3. (Read 4352 times)

How can that be if all blocs are now 1 MB ?  How can there be strategies in place with orphaning blocs with sizes you do not like if they are all equal to the maximum size ?

You *really* believe that ?  
First of all, nobody believes really that BU will activate, no ?  Of course 1 MB blocs are with us for ever, and BU only serves to keep Segwit away.  No miner in his right mind would push BU for real.  So I don't see how your analysis of why BU would be bad for miners, would have the slightest bit of influence, as BU won't happen.  Miners never intended that. They always knew it was bad for them. The god-given present of 1MB blocks, put in for reason or by clumsy mistake, is not going to be wasted.

You also see this, BTW, because in your examples you talk about network delay effects.  But as I pointed out, these only start making an effect on mining if the network delays become not negligible to the mining time taken to obtain a bloc.  We are talking about hundreds of GB blocs here, because we are talking about average bloc finding times of ten minutes.  If you have several GB/s links (which, as a miner, is perfectly affordable), you'd need to make spam blocs of tens or hundreds of GB before your network delay effects start playing a role.  That's not reasonable. 

So before unlimited blocs start making the slightest bit of advantage for a cartel of miners, they would have lost out because of the low fees that a relaxed fee market would bring. 

No, miners like small blocs with hard limits.  They are not going to throw away that great gift from Satoshi.

Let's put that to a test right now. I am going to refute you and let's see if the market is paying attention, because miners damn well better be paying attention.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that before I made my shocking math post, the Bitcoin price was declining, since I made my post then the BTC price has risen 5% and miner support for BU has declined. I think the market is paying attention and that is why I am following up with more explanation (when I should be sleeping instead because it is 2:30am where I am and I am on medications).


One thing is very clear, and that all those strategies were already in play. What unlimited block sizes bring that is new is they hand another club membership tool for the large pools and mining farms to use against those who don't adhere to their cartel.


But it is instantly the case when the block size is unlimited and transaction fees can be as small as any level of spam one wants to incentivize (or even miners paying themselves the transaction fees so they can spam the other miners will huge block sizes with the disproportionate profits going to those with more hashrate, faster propagation, and secret signing agreement cartels).


Incorrect. I refer you to the research on optimal mining strategies. You are behind the curve of the current knowledge of the experts in the field.

---

Yes.  On exchanges, that's not clear, but on chain, yes.

This is an illusion.  Markets don't digest mathematical revelations. 

I think that the problem with the analysis is that you don't know the elasticity of the demand for transactions.  The mathematics makes the assumption of fees independent of the pressure on the fee market.  But the game is much more complicated than that: you have miners that set their own secret limits on the blocs on which they will build, and the blocs they will try to orphan, while they have their own other secret limits on the blocs they will make themselves.

In your math, you presume that network transaction time is important, but for the moment, this is not the case.  By the time it is the case, that it, by the time that blocs will be so big that it is network capacity that limits time, and not the mining time itself, bitcoin will probably be gone since long.  Because miners have mutual interest in improving the network links between them.  If they put 100 GB/s optical links between their nodes, before transmission times become important as compared to their own average bloc mining times (multiples of 10 min), you get an idea of the bloc sizes we're talking about !

As long as bloc transmission times are small as compared to local bloc finding times, network resources do not play a significant role.   What plays a much bigger role is the (in)elasticity of user demand for transactions.

The battle will be a complex dynamics of secret orphaning sizes and own sizes.   There's a contradictory force: own advantage, which is to MAKE bigger blocs, and collective advantage, which is to make smaller blocs, and trying to guess how big is the chance that by you orphaning a big bloc, you are in fact making an orphaned bloc yourself on top of it, or you will inspire others to join you.

In other words, totally undefined consensus   Big fun.  That said, most probably, there will be simply a slow divergence in the bloc size that is generally accepted ; miners may now and then try a few bigger ones, and if they get accepted, this becomes the new size, so essentially the fee market gets relaxed. 

Most probably, they will make 1 MB blocs for a while, then some will try 1.1 MB blocs.  If that passes, most will make 1.1 MB blocs, until some try 1.2 MB blocs.  And so on.  One will most probably not come back down.  So during times of high transaction rates, the bloc sizes will increase because miners are greedy, and then this new limit will stay there until there's another campaign of spam, moving the bloc limits so high that it usually doesn't matter.

Bitcoin unlimited can create real chaos in the market. If you conduct a hardfork, then this should not lead to the creation of two chains, Bitcoin must switch to a new protocol without separation.

would it be like ETH - ETC?

if you have BTC you will automatically have the same amount of lets call it BTC-U?

of course its good.actualy more than just good they are in fact the same core bitcoin instrument, only the second one is 250 dollars cheaper now.
free money on the table

Bitcoin Unlimited is doomed now that I've shown it is based on faulty math. This is fundamental and the entire concept of unlimited block size is flawed. Once the market digests my revelation, there will be dumping of mining nodes for Bitcoin Unlimited. Roger Ver you really need to get better peer review of the projects you support. You are making so many YUGE technical errors and promulgating incorrect technical information. Shame on you.

A joint venture of big exchanges already took stand against this hard fork so need to be worry about this. This unlimited version will be treated like an altcoin and current BTC wont get effected by this.

Deja Vu.
Hardfork, sneaky chinese miners, greedy exchanges.

ETC already did it!

Apparently, the most powerful companies in the Bitcoin community feel that a fork network division is becoming inevitable. Yesterday's statement certainly stunned the investment market. Many of the world's top Bitcoin stock exchanges, including Bitfinex, Shapeshift, BTCC, Kraken, Bitstamp and ten others have issued a statement detailing their contingency plans if there is a network split.

Sane and normal people support bitcoin core, not poloniex, 22 exchanges support core. Only greedy Chinese miners or people who want cheap bitcoin support unlimited.

Relax Bitcoin is not going out anywhere soon despite hard-fork or whatever happens. Bitcoin also has a strong brand other cryptos don't have and will not anytime soon. I also don't expect BU to win over Core team. The battle continues because both sides have their own bias but after things settle we are going up. People just can't understand this because they're in a very altcoin euphoria.

oh yeah its good idea dude 

Haha, yes, actually, exchanges could already list non-existed forks !  That would be fun !   
 

current prices at bitfinex - looks like BCC and BCU are overvalued as they add up to more than actual BTC price. but as soon as there will be margin trading available for them they will probably get closer to reality. or bcu price drops even more, will be interesting.

BTC/USD: 999
BCC/USD: 718
BCU/USD: 294

edit> actualy i got cool trade idea now:) selling short BTCUSD and buying BCCUSD could be safe trade. I have to think it through.

only in the case of a split, if BU will be the new main chain core will be forgotten, but exchange already said that they will see BU as an altcoin, so it's not clear how the things are going, i doubt we would have double of our coins, would be silly because everyone would dump on the exchange

^This... I am/was a supporter of Bitcoin since it was 2 weeks old... but the issues rising with bitcoin in the past two years are not being handled... instead a lot of development is spend in "solutions" that make bitcoin less attractive to use it in the long term. The only reason that I still have bitcoins is that you more or less need it for trading many alts. Which makes these alts also vulnerable to the price whims you see with Bitcoin, due to jokes like BU and alike.

or both bitcoins will be the losers..